> > I use it -- I know how it works. However, I only block RBL hosts this
> > way -- I allow the other messages through because of poor listings on
> > the RSS, etc. and would appreciate a tool that just added such a mail
> > header as I suggested.
>
> I don't want to start one of the infamous NANOG-like blackhole list wars
> here, so, everyone, please set all flames to stun. I am legitimately
> curious about why you chose RBL over RSS. You mentioned 'poor
> listings'. Would you mind elaborating a bit?
>
> I ask only because I wish to obtain more information about the relative
> quality of the various lists. I am currently using DUL and RSS and am
> quite pleased but would be very open to other logical, reasoned
> suggestions. Again, I'm a bit paranoid about this because when it was
> mentioned on NANOG, the flames lasted for eons.
I have to agree that RBL is much better than RSS.
RBL is typically hosts that generate spam. RSS lists
hosts that are open relays, and spam has gotten through.
The problem (which hopefully mail-abuse.org will get around
to fixing) is that the servers that get listed on RSS
don't even get informed that they've been put on the list.
In a matter of 2 weeks, I had hundreds of complaints that
legitimate email wasn't getting through. The people that
were getting blocked didn't even know it. I was able to
get a few of them fixed so they can send email to my customers,
but I got tired of being the "email police", so I dropped
the RSS. The DUL list is good and bad. I have several dialup
customers, some ISDN, that run mailservers and have static IP's,
which are listed in the DUL. Granted they can just forward
their mail through me, but they don't like that. They're pretty
pissed about it. So they do things direct except in a few cases
where they need to get somewhere that they're blocked from.
So its unfortunate that the DUL doesn't just take the dynamic
allocation pools, but they take all dialups, including ISDN,
even with static addressing.
Thanks,
Brian
